Am 4. Februar 2025 wurde der neueste Entwurf des geänderten Konkursgesetzes („Entwurf“) vom Obersten Volksgerichtshof („SPC“) zur öffentlichen Stellungnahme veröffentlicht. Der Entwurf soll das geltende Konkursgesetz Nr. 51/2014/QH13 vom 19. Juni 2014 („Konkursgesetz 2014“) ersetzen und führt mehrere wesentliche Änderungen ein, die sich auf die Konkursverfahren auswirken können, die auf der Umsetzung des Konkursgesetzes 2014 ab seinem Inkrafttreten bis heute basieren. Die erste Frist für öffentliche Stellungnahmen läuft bis zum 25.

Le 4 février 2025, le dernier projet de loi amendée sur la faillite (« le Projet de loi ») a été publié par la Cour populaire suprême (« CPS ») pour consultation publique. Le Projet de loi est censé remplacer la loi actuelle sur la faillite n°51/2014/QH13 du 19 juin 2024 (« Loi sur la faillite de 2014 ») et introduit plusieurs changements significatifs qui pourraient impacter les procédures de faillite, se basant sur la mise en œuvre de la Loi sur la faillite de 2014 depuis son entrée en vigueur.

On 4 February 2025, the latest Draft of the Amended Law on Bankruptcy (“Draft”) was published by the People’s Supreme Court (“SPC”) for public comments. The Draft is prepared to supersede the current Law on Law on Bankruptcy No. 51/2014/QH13 dated 19 June 2014 (“Bankruptcy Law 2014”) and introduces several significant changes that may impact the bankruptcy procedures based on the implementation of the Bankruptcy Law 2014 from its effective date until now.

In a judgment issued yesterday (Francis v Gross [2024] NZCA 528), the Court of Appeal unanimously overturned the controversial High Court decision in Francis v Gross [2023] NZHC 1107 and held that purchasers of partly constructed modular buildings (pods) did not have equitable liens (at all, and especially not in priority to secured creditors) over those pods.

This morning, after much anticipation, the Supreme Court has released its judgment in Yan v Mainzeal Property Construction Limited (in liq) [2023] NZSC 113, largely upholding the Court of Appeal's decision, and awarding damages of $39.8m against the directors collectively, with specified limits for certain directors. The decision signals that a strong emphasis on 'creditor protection' is now embedded in New Zealand company law.

In recent years much ink has been spilled opining on the so called 'Quincecare' duty of care, and the limits of it (see links to our recent insolvency law updates covering the topic below). The judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 was a first instance decision on Steyn J, in which he found that a bank has a duty not to execute a payment instruction given by an agent of its customer without making inquiries if the bank has reasonable grounds for believing that the agent is attempting to defraud the customer.

AML changes for court-appointed liquidators

Important changes for court-appointed liquidators to the regulations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 (Act) will come into force on 9 July 2021.  These changes provide that, for a court-appointed liquidator:

The High Court has released its judgment in Re Halifax NZ Limited (In liq) [2021] NZHC 113, involving a unique contemporaneous sitting of the High Court of New Zealand and Federal Court of Australia.

This update deals with the significant appeal judgment released yesterday by the Court of Appeal in the proceedings brought by the liquidators of Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd (in Liq) (Mainzeal) against its directors. Our previous legal updates on the High Court decisions can be found here and here.

The real lesson from Debut Homes – don't stiff the tax (wo)man

The Supreme Court has overturned the 2019 Court of Appeal decision Cooper v Debut Homes Limited (in liquidation) [2019] NZCA 39 and restored the orders made by the earlier High Court decision, reminding directors that the broad duties under the Companies Act require consideration of the interests of all creditors, and not just a select group. This is the first time New Zealand’s highest court has considered sections 131, 135 and 136 of the Companies Act, making this a significant decision.